So you're trying to prove your point based on judging one match of many? I'm not only saying that he is shanking a lot of forehands, I'm also saying that even during and since the AO his forehand has simply been off. He's is missing a lot of them. He especially has been hitting a lot of forehand long.

thanks for the explanation. I am starting to understand that their a lot about tennis manufacturing that I don't know. I keep thinking that to make a graphite racket involves braiding graphite materials that when you drill a hole into would chip like crazy and be nearly unusable.

Federer is actually shanking less now than he was a few years ago, much less. The difference is that as of late he has been shanking forehands. We can only speculate as to why but I doubt it is because of the racquet.
I havent really looked closely at his kfactor racquet but I have noticed that kfactor 90's have a thicker beam than the tour 90's, especially so in the direction of the strings.

So you're trying to prove your point based on judging one match of many? I'm not only saying that he is shanking a lot of forehands, I'm also saying that even during and since the AO his forehand has simply been off. He's is missing a lot of them. He especially has been hitting a lot of forehand long.

Click to expand...

You must of wathced a different AO than I did this year. He was absolutely killing the ball. If he would have been shanking so many balls, or mishitting, or hitting so many shorts balls during that tournament he would have paid the price and at minimum dropped a set. He didn't.

suresh, during Nadals 80+ winning streak on clay he beat many players that play with larger frames. It's not the frame that is losing these mathces>>> it's Nadal beating his opponents.

Click to expand...

Who said it wasn't?

Davydenko pushed Nadal hard too, and he doesn't use a 90 like Hewitt does.

And I am not sure how many of Nadal's opponents use a headsize > 100.

Looking at the small number of 90 users, including the world #1, none of them can beat Nadal. Yes everyone else loses to him too, but one can't help feeling that if Fed used something else, he may have an easier time.

but one can't help feeling that if Fed used something else, he may have an easier time.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but this is an extermely foolish statement in my opinion. If it was really that easy, then I'm quite certain Fed would switch to a 95?. Then, if he beats Nadal with a 95, Nadal would use the same strategy and switch to a 105. Then, Fed would switch to 110. etc, etc, etc.

Has it ever occurred to you that Nadal is just better than everyone (regardless of the frame size), on clay? Hhmmmmmm????. It's just a theory of mine, but you may want to give it some thought.

Do you go to a larger frame each and every time you lose a match? You must be playing with a 10,000 square inch frame.

I love the geniuses we have around here. They must come up with some brilliant conclusions in their own life...If you have a car accident, does that mean you should drive a smaller car? If your significant other leaves you, should you go for a lower quality mate to lessen the chances of it happening again? Have you seen how often Fed hits a shot that clips the line? With a bigger frame he wouldn't have the same control.

Looking at the small number of 90 users, including the world #1, none of them can beat Nadal. Yes everyone else loses to him too, but one can't help feeling that if Fed used something else, he may have an easier time.

Click to expand...

Yes, and Itzhak Perlman should switch to cello because the larger finger spacing will make it infinitely easier for him to play higher on the neck. Silly violinists.

Sorry, but this is an extermely foolish statement in my opinion. If it was really that easy, then I'm quite certain Fed would switch to a 95?. Then, if he beats Nadal with a 95, Nadal would use the same strategy and switch to a 105. Then, Fed would switch to 110. etc, etc, etc.

Has it ever occurred to you that Nadal is just better than everyone (regardless of the frame size), on clay? Hhmmmmmm????. It's just a theory of mine, but you may want to give it some thought.

Do you go to a larger frame each and every time you lose a match? You must be playing with a 10,000 square inch frame.

Click to expand...

Tiger Woods had to give up the feel of his beloved small Titleist driver for the forgiveness of the big Nike one when he went a year without winning a stroke play tournament and lost his #1 ranking to Singh; he had been winning in spite of it, not because of it. If the K90 was that great a frame for top-level competition, other pros would use it - the 95 wilson in all its forms has dozens of ATP, WTA, and Challenger tour adherents while the 90 has Fed and an obscure WTAer. Fed wins tournaments, or should I say, won tournaments, in spite of it, not because of it.

I can't believe that anyone here would think that because Federer "switched" to a new racket that he would start shanking more balls. Even if Federer is actually playing with a different racket than last year, don't you think that they would make it to be the same weight, swing weight, balance point, etc. so as to not play any different than his previous racket? And besides, going from a 88sq. in. racket to a 90 sq. in. racket should have helped him, right? It seemed to be the consensus on this forum (though hotly contested) that the nCode was 88 sq. in. So if the K90 that Fed uses is 90, wouldn't that be bigger than his alleged racket size that he used previously? I don't see how a racket that is so highly customized to a players desired specs can all of the sudden create a case of the shanks. Perhaps there is a little glitch in his swing. Sometimes shanks come as a result of lack of confidence. Sometimes, as posted earlier, shanks come on clay because Federer plays so close to the baseline and clay is prone to bad bounces. Who knows the real reason "why". But it seems less likely to be the racket than something else.

As far as Jon Wertheim is concerned.....there are way more highly informed people on this forum that have access to insider information than some SI writer.

The most notorious shanker in recent history was Cedric Pioline. Alex Corretja shanked a few too. IMO it has to do with how the pass the contact zone and all of these players have a lot happening there.

Federer has access and has already tried every frame makeup possible. Considering his success by himself, without a coach. Its a safe bet that Federer knows whats best for his game and has access to the best people in the business in regards to what equipment he should use and at what tension. Federer is using what is best for him. Bigger racquet, Smaller Racquet, Gut, Poly, hybrids, different string spacing. Federer has already tried them all and decided whats works best. 10 Grand Slams prove it.

oh man, I just can't believe what I am reading this.. It is not the racquet.. and it is not the size.. I own both K90 and K95 and I used to play with 100 and more square inch racquet.. I am a no boday player but I can tell you this, I play much better and hit the ball much much cleaner on K90 than any other racquet. K95 somehow the weight balance is not the same as K90. I even added 3g @ 3,9 & 12 and 10 g in the handle. Fed needs some confidence. He seems his mental focus is not there. At some big points unlike it before, he starts shanking more b/c he's not confidence about his strokes. He also needs some patience again clay court players. I think he's already knew it and trying to fix his game plan.

Schuettler experimented with the Flexpoint Radical midplus for a few months in 2005 then he switched back to the Prestige Classic 600. He has used the Prestige Classic 600 ever since.

Here are some Pictures of Schuettler using the Prestige Classic 600 from the 2007 Hamburg Masters, 2007 BMW Open, 2007 Indian Wells, and 2007 Dubai.
You will note that Rainer's Prestige Classic 600 has the new stencil from this year on the strings. Also Rainer's PC600 has a collar above the grip. The 630 cm2 head size racquet never had a collar and the XL version of the Prestige Classic 600 also did not have a collar.

Click to expand...

Are you sure?
To me it looks like a 98 square inch racquet, and not the Prestige Classic 600!

You're absolutely right. Federer did help to design his current racquet and he probably did go through many molds and prototypes. However, all of this happened in 2002 when he switched from the PS 6.0 85 to his current racquet. He's been using the same racquet ever since.

Click to expand...

BP makes sense...think about it, why would Fed switch racquets after winning 6-7 GS and countless tourneys? He has been dominate. He never switched racquets. We finally have his "type" of racquet. Fed just came back to earth..that's all. The guy has barely lost the past 2 1/2 years. That kind of winning places and extreme amount of pressure. Maybe that's why Pete was no where near as concerned with regular events as he was with major ones. Fed seems to put a lot of pressure on himself to win all tournaments. The guy could be a little burned out with all of his off-court charity and what nots. Its a phase. He will probably win Wimby and most likely the USO. Its not the racquet.

Becker serves with a forehand grip and lands on his right foot - he serves well despite it, or to put it another way, it suits him and no other top pro. Fed is the same way - the racquet still suits him, but not other pros. There is no reason it can't also suit you and other high-level club players. My only point is that it is not necessarily a good idea to model yourself on an exception.

You're absolutely right. Federer did help to design his current racquet and he probably did go through many molds and prototypes. However, all of this happened in 2002 when he switched from the PS 6.0 85 to his current racquet. He's been using the same racquet ever since.

Click to expand...

So you've dropped the "artart" Tony Roche PS85 story, which you once believed despite its obvious implausibility?

Tiger Woods had to give up the feel of his beloved small Titleist driver for the forgiveness of the big Nike one when he went a year without winning a stroke play tournament and lost his #1 ranking to Singh; he had been winning in spite of it, not because of it. If the K90 was that great a frame for top-level competition, other pros would use it - the 95 wilson in all its forms has dozens of ATP, WTA, and Challenger tour adherents while the 90 has Fed and an obscure WTAer. Fed wins tournaments, or should I say, won tournaments, in spite of it, not because of it.

Click to expand...

nice post..unfortunately in threads like these, your sound logic is lost

Anyway you "experts" want to cut it, Fed beat one of the best clay courters of all time today on CLAY, with a smaller frame than Nadal. Additionally, Nadal with a larger frame had more shanks, more errors, and less winners. Fed also absolutely destroyed Nadal in the 3rd set 6-0. So much for demanding frames, and not being able to swing them late in matches during "adverse" conditions. Bye, Bye!

So you've dropped the "artart" Tony Roche PS85 story, which you once believed despite its obvious implausibility?

Click to expand...

Huh? Not at all. Roche said that the racquet that Federer is using is essentially a ProStaff but with a bigger head, which is what the K90 is pretty close to. Roche never claimed that Federer was using a PS 6.0 85 (while he was coaching him). Please check your facts.

Excerpt:"About the nCode of Roger, when I ask him about the composition of the rackett, he told me:" ... this his a copy of the legendary ProStaff 85 but with a larger head size, nothing else, because Roger plays with that racket since he was 15 or 16 years old, but because of clay courts 4 or 5 years ago, Roger have asked Wilson to make the same racket but with a bigger head size."

Anyway you "experts" want to cut it, Fed beat one of the best clay courters of all time today on CLAY, with a smaller frame than Nadal. Additionally, Nadal with a larger frame had more shanks, more errors, and less winners. Fed also absolutely destroyed Nadal in the 3rd set 6-0. So much for demanding frames, and not being able to swing them late in matches during "adverse" conditions. Bye, Bye!

Everyone remember that no pro, including Federer, uses a PS 85. Not even Sampras any more. Federer said in his interview that he was missing balls in the first set and was too early on his shots. This seems to indicate he was swinging too fast and early, which is needed with an unwieldy racquet. He lost 2-6. In Rolland Garros, the ball is going to bounce even higher and with more topspin to his backhand. He better be careful because Nadal is not going to be too tired to let him comeback from a first set thrashing.

I don't know if I'd trust Wertheim. Yeah, he's got more info than I do, but I don't think he's a very good or resourceful tennis writer. I mean, he never writes anything, just his weekly ad-in, ad-out, and the mailbag. Rarely any substantive articles.

Of course, the blame probably lies with SI, which doesn't devote much space to tennis. We (in America) need real tennis columnists like in Europe.

He better be careful because Nadal is not going to be too tired to let him comeback from a first set thrashing.

Click to expand...

The one who needs to be "careful" and consider a frame change is Nadal. He is the one who had more shanks, errors, and less winners. Additionally, the one who was "exhausted" (as you pointed out) at the end of the match. Perhaps from weilding such a "heavy and demanding" frame?? LMAO!

N90 with that white near PWS will look bigger.
Imagine if he has his rackets painted entirely black, you might say it is a 85 again.

Click to expand...

That is totally true. When I look at my all black Vantage 90 next to my red/white nCode 90, the Vantage's head looks much smaller than the head on the nCode 90. But when I put one on top of the other, it turns out that the Vantage 90 is actually slightly bigger than the nCode 90. It's all just an optical illusion as the paintjob makes a big difference in how big or small a racquet looks.